Incontrovertible evidence of a god...but uh oh!.... (Thought Experiment)

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 90
Topic's author
#61
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Mopac
According to you if a being says I am god we are supposed to buy it.

No. According to the OP:

...almighty power DOES exist, and said power has provided evidence overnight to the entire earth ...It's all over the news, it's doing interviews, it's demonstrating its powers, it's explaining the meaning of life, etc. etc. In short, there is literally no way to deny its existence
Now you might quibble that instead of 'existence" I should have used 'deity' or 'divine powers,' but we already clarified that. The point is there's no more believing it any more than you believe that water's wet. It simply becomes a fact accepted the world over, and when it's your turn to choose up or down, you say "No, this isn't true because then I'd be wrong."

What you are asking commes from a fundamental misunderstanding concerning the nature of The Son's person.
What you are saying comes from a fundamental misunderstanding concerning the topic at hand: the being proves there's no Jesus. What do you do? You already answered you'd choose punishment rather than change your mind. 

There's a whole thread on justifying why you believe what you believe. This thread's about what you'd do if presented with incontrovertible evidence that WHATEVER you believe is 100%, undoubtedly incorrect, and you have the chance to recant or be punished for what then becomes willful ignorance. You don't believe in eternal punishment, okay, but that wouldn't stop you from being eternally punished in this scenario. I think you're like the other two theists who voted: they'd rather cling to their beliefs in the face of fact. 

This is simply a strawman which is why it can't be answered. 
How is it a straw man, exactly, this question? You're basically saying "I read the original post, but I'm still right so this is not worth talking about under these terms." THe question is simple and I don't find it a straw man at all: if presented with an irrefutable fact that whatever you believed up until this very moment was unmistakably incorrect, would you change your beliefs to fit the facts. Simple idea =/= straw man, as far as I can tell. I'm not trying to trick anyone, in fact i'm not even arguing either side. I'm creating a choice that two people have already answered (both choosing punishment), one person said couldn't be answered with any certainty ("I don't think I can play this one") and you, who have said "all religions are right and wrong, and since I am smarter than both sides and have special knowledge, I don't see the point in participating." 

Brutal, the deist I believe, answered how I'd answer: if it's incontrovertible proof, then sure, I'd have to admit it and welcome our newly revealed deity into whatever life was left here. 
#62
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
You are the easiest of pickings numby but you are even more annoying than the moron mop.
Don't respond to me when you have me blocked you nincompoop hypocrite.
#63
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Nonsense
#64
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Thank you for admitting that the passage was not written by some john the bludger but by an IPSS as is the entire book.
#65
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Hey mate this entire thread is proof beyond doubt that these godists are incapable of independent thought. If it isn't in their indoctrinated dogma it can't penetrate what they pretend to think with.
#66
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@disgusted
Don't respond to me

Listen to your own words twerp. I have you blocked because you are an idiot, don't mention my name. 
#67
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Hey numpty I've never said that so who are you talking about?
#68
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
As a nihilist, the only time you claim to believe in something is if you can feign belief in order to sow doubt in another's mind about their beliefs.

Like for example, believing that I admitted something I didn't.


You are like a characature of wickedness. Mindless and insipid. Without hope. A dog. A swine. An overall worthless person.

Crazy check.
#69
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
Go back to wherever you were, you lost just by turning up here. How are the god worlds at the moment is the purple one still the prettiest? bwuahahahahahahahahahahah. I know you like that one because it has a homosexual god.bwuahahahahahahaha
#70
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
As a nihilist, the only time you claim to believe in something is if you can feign belief in order to sow doubt in another's mind about their beliefs.
Still projecting little one, you really are the most dishonest poster here.
Like for example, believing that I admitted something I didn't.
Then answer the many questions I've asked you instead of projecting your erroneous beliefs onto me. Here's your chance.
Prove that someone called St John the theologian wrote this.

You are like a characature of wickedness. Mindless and insipid. Without hope. A dog. A swine. An overall worthless person.
Prove it.
.

#71
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
Homophobe.
#72
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
wanna cracker, wanna cracker
#73
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Not from a homophobe

#74
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@ludofl3x
I imagine theists wouldn't be the only ones in your scenario who would have to deal with the fact they were wrong. As an atheist I'd be eating crow as well.

#75
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Antichrist.

Without a doubt.

I find it quite fascinating that you are the only one to give a straight answer to this hypothetical question in this thread yet whenever I ask you a hypothetical question you claim to be against hypotheticals on principal. I guess that particular principal doesn't apply if you sense the opportunity fpr a sermon.
#76
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
@ludofl3x
In answer to the OP, whether I would worship this diety somwhat despends on the details of the situation and I would still have a lot of questions. You said:

You can do it and enjoy his good graces, or you can deny it, and be sent to some equivalent of the punishment you used to fear from your old religion. 

But what about the 10% or so of the population that has no religious beliefs? I understand this is meant for theists to answer but still there must be something for former athiests in this scenario.

If it was a simple "bow down or burn up" ultimatum I would probably submit out of fear, at least assuming that my submission doesn't grant any power to such an immoral being. (Given the scenario says they are already omnipotent I am assuming they just want worship to feed their own ego.)

(Mopac tagged here because I forgot to tag him in my previous post)
Topic's author
#77
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
But what about the 10% or so of the population that has no religious beliefs? I understand this is meant for theists to answer but still there must be something for former athiests in this scenario.

My answer is that you'd immediately have to say "Oh, well that's a surprise, but here it is, proving it and removing all doubt, something supernatural definitely exists." The scenario doesn't require submission beyond recognizing this fact, because if it had, then we run the risk of spinning out into all sorts of "well what if it told you to do THIS repugnant act" and I don't think that gets very far. You either recognize the supernatural being for what it is, i/e/ not what you grew up worshiping (n my case, not the typical JudeoChristian god), or you say "Nope, that's for sure the anti-Christ and I'm still right" and you burn in whatever eternal pit of punishment you grew up fearing (hell, in my case). 
#78
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Is the choice between swallowing some humble pie or burning forever in hell?  If so its a bit of a no-brainer!
Topic's author
#79
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
You'd think, right? Except the only believers who've answered have all chosen to burn forever rather than be wrong. I can't say it's surprising. I just wonder if believers find that at all elucidating, but I think chances are slim.
#80
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
No the OP claims that you submit or burn. No different to many other gods, unworthy of worship.
#81
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
Doesn't matter if it's unworthy; burning sulphur hurts a lot more than embarassment!

If a god existed - no matter what it was like - I would not want to upset it.  But I don't take up Pascal's wager.  There is no god.  What I would do in the totally hypothetical, unrealistic and impossible scenario of the OP is just a bit of fun.

#82
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
The scenario doesn't require submission beyond recognizing this fact, because if it had, then we run the risk of spinning out into all sorts of "well what if it told you to do THIS repugnant act" 

But in the OP you said:

He does, however, demand that you present yourself to him within 48 hours, bend the knee and renounce your old belief.

This certainly sounds like a demand for submission to me.

Furthermore when I said that such a deity would be an immoral one I was not adding to your hypothetical but instead extrapolating from it. A "bow down or burn up" ultimatum is enough for me to form such a conclusion. Even if I am exempt from that ultimatum due to never having been a thiest the fact that this deity would give such an ultimatum to anyone is enough for me to deem them immoral.
Topic's author
#83
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
The way I figure it, I'd at least be among the number of people who could honestly say "Well I didn't think any of the stories about a deity I heard made any sense, so I didn't believe any of them, because I had no evidence that convinced me. Since you left no evidence I didn't figure out you were there, which kind of seems by design, almost everyone (or perhaps LITERALLY everyone) had it wrong. Now I have evidence and I don't have to believe anything, I can just know." I feel like at least that line of logic would work before being catapulted into the void Python style. 
Topic's author
#84
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It's a fair critique of the way it's posed, I must admit. I guess I put it in there because that seems language that theists would most identify with, and would more effectively crystallize the idea that you were not to maintain beliefs in your old gods anymore. 
#85
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
But it's not a matter of eating humble pie it's a command to submit.No better than the other claimed gods, being real doesn't entitle him to my submission. If he isn't worthy of my submission then he can go fuck himself, if all he requires is billions of people to lie to him then he's not a god at all.
#86
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
I can't take this thread seriously.   I'll drop out of it.

#87
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
I feel like at least that line of logic would work before being catapulted into the void Python style. 



#88
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
To you this is a hypothetical.

To us it is a fulfillment of prophecy. 




#89
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
The way I figure it, I'd at least be among the number of people who could honestly say "Well I didn't think any of the stories about a deity I heard made any sense, so I didn't believe any of them, because I had no evidence that convinced me. Since you left no evidence I didn't figure out you were there, which kind of seems by design, almost everyone (or perhaps LITERALLY everyone) had it wrong. Now I have evidence and I don't have to believe anything, I can just know." I feel like at least that line of logic would work before being catapulted into the void Python style.
Or maybe 92% correct? [LINK]
Topic's author
#90
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Fucking Doug!